AxKnowledgeBase_get_private_knowledge_base_overview

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses ordering ('largest first'), the aggregate output ('total node count'), the default scope ('every paper... regardless of who ingested it'), and the effect of self_only=True. This is meaningful behavioral detail beyond the schema, though it does not cover possible error or empty-result behavior explicitly.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact and well-structured. The first sentence states the core output, the second provides usage context, and the third clarifies the parameter behavior. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff or repetition.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple one-parameter overview tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it explains what is returned, the ordering, the total count, when to use it, and the parameter behavior. It could briefly clarify the return structure or handle the empty-graph case, but those are minor gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some value by restating the default behavior and how self_only=True changes scope, but the schema already documents the parameter clearly. The added meaning is useful but not substantial enough to push higher.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly identifies the tool's purpose: returning node counts per entity label in the private knowledge graph, ordered largest first, with the total node count. It distinctly frames this as an overview of the private graph, separating it from sibling search, list, and graph-read tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly tells the agent when to use it: 'Use it to see what the private graph holds — including whether it holds anything at all — before searching or querying it.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the usage context is clear, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.